I agree with that the decision rule presented is usually good, but disagree that this means consequentialism and deontology aren't at odds. They are still mutually exclusive as propositions and give radically different accounts of what really matters and what makes something good. They give different recommendations on what to do in many cases, enough that I think the fact that so many people believe in deontology is a massive oportunity cost to the world.

Kind of agree. I think this question confuses how choices should be made in practice with what is the ground-truth for what makes a choice good; and the form of "deontology" contemplated here is really something more like rule-utilitarianism.

It's perfectly reasonable to argue that people should use deontological-style rules (like rights and obligations), even though consequence (and not obedience to rules) is the ground truth. My understanding is that the true deontologist believes that obedience and not consequence is the ground truth.